I have a question, wouldn't it be possible to compile the Java code to native code in order to run it on consoles? I am asking because I know Naughty Dog did it for Lisp. They hired a developer to create the Lisp implementation and then they were able to run it on PS2. I really don't think a VM in a console would be useful, maybe just for little games but not for the big titles.

Another question, this time about the XNA. I remember when I first saw it there were limitations to what you could do, like:

- you couldn't do a multiplayer online game;- you had to give the source together with the game if you were to share it through the XBox network;- only people that paid for the Creator's club subscription would be able to see it;- you couldn't develop for any platform other than Windows and XBox;- The total size of the application is limited, etc.

Are those limitations still there? If so, don't they make it quite useless for independent developers? Does XNA support 3D game programming?

The thing about Java is that it got a bad reputation from the start about slowness, people just assume that .Net faster even if it isn't. I was watching a presentation by John Carmack, the guy completely demolishes Java and then 50 minutes later he praises .Net (!!). He didn't say that .Net is great, but he said something like "When M$ reaches 3.0 it is because they have fixed their mistakes and they are usually the best in the market" and that the only roadblock for Id to use .Net was that he needed the cross-platformness of C++ for their games. I stopped watching the video there, because disinformed opinions I have my own, I don't need to watch his opinions about things he doesn't know.

Another thing, it seems that Microsoft invests heavily in gaming and that shows in such presentations from figures of the game industry. They may even consider .Net for some stuff, mainly because is integrated in the same stuff they buy from Microsoft. So people usually give them more credibility. I have no idea how it is like to develop Java games for the cell phone, but it seems that it is not given the necessary attention to game developers in order to transform Java ME into a kickass platform for mobile games, not just ok, but awesome.

Ok, you can say that we can go ahead and do it ourselves and then join the JCP and promote the stuff we want in order for it to get into the Java platform, but sometimes the handholding that a company does makes a lot of difference. That's more weight than just a guy with a dream.

I had actually seriously considered using Jet to simply create a .dll for and entire game and just write a tiny stub in native console-speak - but Java is only half of the puzzle: without a cross-platform rendering library there's still no point in doing it.

Another question, this time about the XNA. I remember when I first saw it there were limitations to what you could do, like:

- you couldn't do a multiplayer online game;- you had to give the source together with the game if you were to share it through the XBox network;- only people that paid for the Creator's club subscription would be able to see it;- you couldn't develop for any platform other than Windows and XBox;- The total size of the application is limited, etc.

Are those limitations still there? If so, don't they make it quite useless for independent developers? Does XNA support 3D game programming?

IIRC, and from what I've played with:- There are XNA APIs for multiplayer stuff now, which lets you create and join games. Cavets: on 360 you need to have a gold membership (as well as your creators club membership) for all participants (not really an issue since really everyone who has a 360 connected to the internet has probably already bought this). On windows you need a similar subscription which is quite uncommon. But if you want to you can always use the raw .Net sockets API on windows and do it manually yourself anyway.- Apparently fixed.- Still true, but there was an announcment at GDC which said they were opening it up so anyone could play without a subscription.- There are a few ongoing attempts at writing an open source version of the XNA API to work on Mono, which in theory gives you linux and mac support. Early days though, and probably not practical at the moment.- Theres a limit, but I remember it being so big I didn't pay any attention to it.

Interestingly the VM for the 360 seems quite "simple" (ie. no hotspot analysis and all that really funky stuff the JVM and windows C# VM do). The garbage collector comes in for a lot of flack for being crude and slow (reminds me of Java 1.3 days with GC glitches), but since C# has structs it's not nearly as awkward to work around.

And yeah, "bullshitting" is probably a bit harsh, sorry. But the general point still stands that we've been hearing promises and suggestions that Java on <insert console here> is only months away for ages now and we're all a little sick of it.

I don't understand what's the point of XNA at all, mainly because it makes no sense to have such little games on consoles. Console gamers are more interested in Gears of War-like graphics and productions, not casual games, and the PC crushes all consoles combined in the quantity of sales every year and there's a space for little games there. So, why bother with consoles or XNA?

Maybe the Wii would be a better place for indies, but it is still not as good as the PC.

- There are a few ongoing attempts at writing an open source version of the XNA API to work on Mono, which in theory gives you linux and mac support. Early days though, and probably not practical at the moment.

People trying to use C# for cross platform game programming with hardware acceleration should rather use Java + JOGL (or LWJGL if you prefer). I agree with you, it is not practical and not really reliable. I don't know if it is possible to use Tao framework under Mono to use CSGL under Linux.

I don't understand what's the point of XNA at all, mainly because it makes no sense to have such little games on consoles. Console gamers are more interested in Gears of War-like graphics and productions, not casual games, and the PC crushes all consoles combined in the quantity of sales every year and there's a space for little games there. So, why bother with consoles or XNA?

I actually do think that console gamers are interested in smaller, cheap games. On PSN you can quite easily buy such games for like 10 euro (casual games like Lemmings, PS1 games and such). Those kind of games are an easy fit for java.Of course that's not why people primarily buy a PS3, but there is a real market for smaller games on consoles.Which makes sense, seeing that console manufacturers are more and more targetting the mainstream, not only hardcore gamers.

Even without a fancy 3D renderling library, I can still see possibilities. Many casual games and other 2D games could get away with the standard Java2D libraries.

... the PC crushes all consoles combined in the quantity of sales every year and there's a space for little games there. So, why bother with consoles or XNA?

I checked this out a while back and found that console game-related sales (incl software and hardware) are about 10 times bigger than PC game sales for retailers like electronics boutique as well some of the big publicly listed studios.

I checked this out a while back and found that console game-related sales (incl software and hardware) are about 10 times bigger than PC game sales for retailers like electronics boutique as well some of the big publicly listed studios.

You are reinventing the mathematics then. The total quantity of PCs sold every year in the world is several times bigger than consoles, and practically any computer can run a simple game. The only softwares that are sold more than in the PC are games from big studios (and that's because they insist in retail instead of exploring digital distribution), but then it goes back to what I said previously, the console gamers are more interested in Gears of War-like graphics and productions.

Why to put up with Microsoft's terms (or Sony's terms) for an audience clearly wanting MGS4, GT5 or Gears 2? One thing I think it is awesome though is old games from the Arcade, NES, Genesis and other consoles available through digital distribution on consoles. But those are consagrated games with its own fan base, not a new production.

You are reinventing the mathematics then. The total quantity of PCs sold every year in the world is several times bigger than consoles, and practically any computer can run a simple game. The only softwares that are sold more than in the PC are games from big studios (and that's because they insist in retail instead of exploring digital distribution), but then it goes back to what I said previously, the console gamers are more interested in Gears of War-like graphics and productions.

Why to put up with Microsoft's terms (or Sony's terms) for an audience clearly wanting MGS4, GT5 or Gears 2? One thing I think it is awesome though is old games from the Arcade, NES, Genesis and other consoles available through digital distribution on consoles. But those are consagrated games with its own fan base, not a new production.

Well, not every PC sold is used for gaming. How may cars are sold each year and how many of those car owners actually purchase performance tuner parts? Yes, the "potential" market for PC gamers is huge, but the volume of content is equally huge. Think of the model as a funnel and the attractiveness of the console is apparent. A console is purchased, almost always, because it plays games, unlike a PC.

Well, not every PC sold is used for gaming. How may cars are sold each year and how many of those car owners actually purchase performance tuner parts? Yes, the "potential" market for PC gamers is huge, but the volume of content is equally huge. Think of the model as a funnel and the attractiveness of the console is apparent. A console is purchased, almost always, because it plays games, unlike a PC.

I tend to disagree. Last year alone PC sales were over 270 million and let's keep in mind that an integrated graphics chip is more than capable of running simple games (they lose only to the Wii, PS3 and X360 in terms of power). Even if we consider that only 1 in 10 of those PCs will be used for games, it is still more than all console sales combined for the same period.

I tend to disagree. Last year alone PC sales were over 270 million and let's keep in mind that an integrated graphics chip is more than capable of running simple games (they lose only to the Wii, PS3 and X360 in terms of power). Even if we consider that only 1 in 10 of those PCs will be used for games, it is still more than all console sales combined for the same period.

Well, it's ok to disagree, but the numbers are on my side. Take out of the number of PCs sold all of those used in call centers, production lines, work desktops, etc. While some games may be played there during downtime, lunches or slacking off, the reality is that there are no real game revenues to be had there. 1 in 10 to be used as a game PC? I would say 1 in 100+. Again, while some may be used for playing games, they are overwhelmingly not being used as primary game platforms. Unlike the console where virtually 90% of the consoles in the market are being used to play video games.

As for the article with Alex St. John, what else is he going to say? One of the creators of DirectX who has his entire company and future wrapped up in downloadable PC games is bullish on the PC? Surprise As for the Intel embedded graphics chipset, it is a piece of crap and even Intel knows it. This is why there is a MAJOR effort underway at Intel to reverse the damage they have caused by shoveling crippled REAL 3D based GPUs into the market. Mark Rein from Epic screams about this all of the time.

It's a victim of overambitious production quality I think. Hence the massive rise in the casual and downloadable games industries on the PC over the last 10 years. It'll keep growing. The idea is simple: make games that run on more PCs instead of targeting the top 5%, and/or make games that target more than just avid hardcore gaming fans. The PC market's there - it's huge - just nowhere near fully tapped of its current potential.

It's a victim of overambitious production quality I think. Hence the massive rise in the casual and downloadable games industries on the PC over the last 10 years. It'll keep growing. The idea is simple: make games that run on more PCs instead of targeting the top 5%, and/or make games that target more than just avid hardcore gaming fans. The PC market's there - it's huge - just nowhere near fully tapped of its current potential.

Cas

No doubt, but a system as open as PC publishing means that the competition for the same audience increases by a factor of a thousand +

Even if the amount of PC game sales counts for 20% instead of 9.5, most PCs are probably not meant for gaming. Just think about the amount of PCs at offices.For example, I have direct acess to 3 PCs: 1 personal PC, 1 work laptop, 1 desktop at work. I only play games on 1 of them.

Maybe if we don't think of the market in terms of "hardware units shipped" but in terms of "people using the hardware"... nearly everyone uses a PC (or a Mac) at some point during their daily lives for recreation these days. This compares favourably with the percentage of people using consoles. Well, it doesn't even need to compare favourably - it's still a massive number. Recreation isn't all about FPSes either... could just as easily be popping gems or playing space invaders And that you can do at work too. Not every work PC is permanently running a spreadsheet, as we can tell by the massive rise in popularity of Flash-based game sites and other timewasters like Facebook.

Sure, many people play flash games on their office PCs when the boss is not watching, but I've *never* seen someone pulling his creditcard to buy/download a game on his office PC.And when they're playing a game and their boss is entering the room, you can be almost 100% sure they'll ALT-TAB to a spreadsheet

It's a victim of overambitious production quality I think. Hence the massive rise in the casual and downloadable games industries on the PC over the last 10 years. It'll keep growing. The idea is simple: make games that run on more PCs instead of targeting the top 5%, and/or make games that target more than just avid hardcore gaming fans. The PC market's there - it's huge - just nowhere near fully tapped of its current potential.

You are right. The major studios work under the ludicrous assumption that people should upgrade their PCs in order to play the same game with better graphics. They don't sell as much as they should not because the market is bad, but because they target the top 5% only.

Gaming on the PC should be awesome without requiring a quad SLI or anything. If they still do game for a crappy hardware such as the PS2, PSP or DS, why wouldn't they do it for a platform that has even more processing power and memory is abundant?

I think the blame for little sales is of the developers themselves.

Right now there's a huge gap in the PC market of games. We have casual on one side and buy-a-new-PC-to-play-it-FPSes on another. Who's in the middle? WoW? The Sims? If one manages to produce a title with higher quality and content than a casual game, but still cheaper and not as extreme as a more-of-the-same-buy-a-new-PC-FPS, wouldn't it have a chance? Especially today with the internet as a means of distribution?

Well, it's ok to disagree, but the numbers are on my side. Take out of the number of PCs sold all of those used in call centers, production lines, work desktops, etc. While some games may be played there during downtime, lunches or slacking off, the reality is that there are no real game revenues to be had there. 1 in 10 to be used as a game PC? I would say 1 in 100+. Again, while some may be used for playing games, they are overwhelmingly not being used as primary game platforms. Unlike the console where virtually 90% of the consoles in the market are being used to play video games.

As for the article with Alex St. John, what else is he going to say? One of the creators of DirectX who has his entire company and future wrapped up in downloadable PC games is bullish on the PC? Surprise As for the Intel embedded graphics chipset, it is a piece of crap and even Intel knows it. This is why there is a MAJOR effort underway at Intel to reverse the damage they have caused by shoveling crippled REAL 3D based GPUs into the market. Mark Rein from Epic screams about this all of the time.

Mark Rein produces rehashes for selling new video boards, just like many other studios. UT3 is mediocre. Intel IGPs are more than enough to run a regular game, the ones that aren't like Crysis and don't require you to buy a new PC. It should be the equivalent of a GeForce series 5 or 6. When I bought a new PC some years ago I got one of those, I could run the old games I had, that the were considered "good-looking" for XBox or PS2 on my PC at excellent speed and 1280x1024.

One example, it would be possible to build a God of War-like game for an IGP in a better resolution and still get better framerates.

No, it's not the same thing as a PS3 or a X360, but the power is there! And targetting Intel IGPs is targetting 60% of the market. The other 40% will be able to run as well, because usually will have something from Nvidia or ATI. Isn't it 100% higher than 5%?

The PC market is huge. Maybe it is not for those who target many thousand dollars PCs that produce enough heat and consume enough energy that could be used by a family of 4 people taking bath two times a day.

I just don't believe that people develop games for such resource constrained devices, like PS2, PSP and DS, but they can't develop games for PCs.

Intel IGPs are more than enough to run a regular game, the ones that aren't like Crysis and don't require you to buy a new PC. It should be the equivalent of a GeForce series 5 or 6.

Hm, are you sure of that?The Intel gfx hw in my newish laptop is an order of magnitude slower than my old GeForce 4 Ti4200 in my old desktop. That is, if the intel drivers don't crash, which they usually do whenever I try to run a game.

It might be able to churn out God of War in low res if developers would take enough time to work around all driver bugs, but I doubt many Intel gfx owners are interested in running God of War, otherwise they would have opted for something at least half decent.Still, the fact remains that those shoddy Intel gfx chips sit in most PC's, which is a shame.

Quote

I just don't believe that people develop games for such resource constrained devices, like PS2, PSP and DS, but they can't develop games for PCs.

That's probably because those people want to make money. Console owners usually buy games, PC owners usually don't.

Hm, are you sure of that?The Intel gfx hw in my newish laptop is an order of magnitude slower than my old GeForce 4 Ti4200 in my old desktop. That is, if the intel drivers don't crash, which they usually do whenever I try to run a game.

Yes, I am. For example, Splinter Cell, the first one that was also released for the original XBox, ran at a higher resolution and faster than a GeForce 4 that I had in the past. It is far more powerful than a PS2. NFS Most Wanted would run fine on it, but without all the graphics turned on, just like a GeForce 5.

Even Half-Life 2 would run at a decent speed at 1024x768. The problem was that it would crash, not the framerate.

Again with the 3D. There's no need to be in 3D to sell games. A GeForce card is fast enough for pretty much any sensibly conceived 2D game. The 2D market is as big as the 3D one. Pick your battles!

Cas

I agree with you on one point, there is no need to be in 3D to sell games. However, I'm not sure that 2D market is as big as the 3D one and I won't develop this point but I don't think in terms of "market", I prefer speaking about potential players. I can't be absolutely sure of it but I assume that most of the players want 3D games.

java-gaming.org is not responsible for the content posted by its members, including references to external websites,
and other references that may or may not have a relation with our primarily
gaming and game production oriented community.
inquiries and complaints can be sent via email to the info‑account of the
company managing the website of java‑gaming.org